More attacks on dissent against Sheehan

The smearing of Cindy Sheehan as a traitor continues, as Media Matters documents here and here. Some of the worst offenders:

Michael Barone: "Today, we have many in the press -- not most, I think, but some at least -- who do not want us to win this war and think that we don't deserve to win this war. It's a more critical press."

Frank Gaffney: "It will clearly be the case that enemies of this country, in a global war, of which Iraq is one front, will be emboldened and hardened, even as I think they are by these sorts of indications that we're losing our nerve, that we're being bloodied and that we're going to try to -- or at least some of us -- are going to try to compel the president to give up, that will only bring the threat we currently face, principally overseas, to our shores and, I think, do so in a way that will make the losses we've sustained in Iraq pale by comparison.

Chattanooga Times Free Press: "[I]t is unfortunate that Mrs. Sheehan's sadness now has caused her to be used as a 'front' and a personal 'symbol' by a variety of political anti-Bush and anti-war activists who are seeking to undermine the American military effort to establish freedom and defeat terrorism in Iraq and throughout the world... It is saddening that Mrs. Sheehan has lost a son. It is saddening that Mrs. Sheehan's demonstration has sought to undermine the purpose of his service in a way that surely encourages his murderers."

David Horowitz: "Cindy Sheehan is the most prominent symbol and chief mouthpiece of a psychological warfare campaign against her own country in time of war that can only benefit its enemies on the field of battle. It is one thing to criticize a war policy... She has made herself a willing tool of anti-American forces in this country that want America to lose the war in Iraq and the war on terror generally... She has betrayed his sacrifice and embraced his enemies."

Charles Krauthammer reportedly also said that Sheehan is "hurting our troops and endangering our troops," and said that her statements "have to be attacked because they are libeling America, endangering America, and they are untrue from beginning to end." According to Media Matters, when this claim was questioned by Juan Williams, Krauthammer said, "You don't think it's encouraging, you don't think it's going to encourage Iraqis who are attacking us, particularly this kind of stuff about American imperialism?"

What's especially sad is that this sort of anti-democratic smear campaign is par for the course since 2001, as I documented on Spinsanity. Henry Farrell of Crooked Timber has compiled an updated list of commentators claiming that the left is rooting for the other side in Iraq or the war on terror.

Comments

[Menlo Bob]

Ignore any attempt by Sheehan to use her profile for political purpose. Rebutting these are not allowed.

[Michael Heinz]

Oh, come on.

Arguing with someone you disagree with is *not* an attack on dissent.

An attack on dissent would be to throw Sheehan jail for "providing aid and comfort to the enemy." Complaining that she's antisemitic is merely exercising the same rights she herself is exercising.

[Brendan Nyhan]

These people aren't arguing with her (or calling her anti-Semitic in the quotes I presented) -- they're attacking the very idea of criticizing the government by saying it endangers US troops, encourages the enemy, etc. By that logic, we can't have a democracy because any criticism of the war or the president puts troops in danger and so forth.

[Michael Heinz]

How is that different from the "chickenhawk" argument that you can't support the war unless you or someone you love is in Iraq right now?

Attacking someone for supporting the enemy - whether truly or falsely - isn't "stifling" anything and claiming that it does so serves no purpose than to distract from the substance of the argument.

[Achillea]

I think we can all agree that words and deeds have consequences, both good and bad, sometimes unintended, sometimes the reverse of what /was/ intended. Mrs Sheehan is contending that President Bush's words and deeds are having overwhelmingly, if not exclusively, negative consequences. I disagree with that claim, but she is certainly free to make it. And others are equally free to contend that /her/ words and deeds are having overwhelmingly, if not exclusively, negative consequences. If you want to refute those contentions, fine, get to work on the points themselves. You can start with those you quoted above:

Barone: Some in the press don't want us to win this war.

CTFP: Mrs Sheehan is being manipulated by political forces seeking to undermine the war effort, thus encouraging those Casey Sheehan gave his life fighting against.

Horowitz: Mrs Sheehan is deliberately, and successfully, acting as a propagandist for very anti-American forces that killed her son.

Note -- in the spirit of fair play, should have some refutations of Mrs Sheehan's arguments (such as they are). Perhaps we can start with 'Bush is a lackey of a warmongering Zionist neocon cabal' ...